Livestock and Wolves
A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
SECOND EDITION
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to
the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities.
Acknowledgements
Principal Author
Suzanne Asha Stone
Contributing Authors
Erin Edge, Nina Fascione, Craig Miller, Charlotte Weaver
Other Contributors
Brian and Kathleen Bean, Stewart Breck, Ray Coppinger, Tom Gehring, Pete Haswell, Marco Musiani, Fernando Najera,
Carter Niemeyer, Brad Purcell, Linda Thurston, Jesse Timberlake, Rick and Carol Williamson, Ian Whalan
Editorial Team
Kate Davies, Charlotte Weaver
Designer
Maureen Gregory
Special thanks to the Park Foundation, Lava Lake Institute and Lava Lake Lamb; Blaine County Commission; Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife; U.S.D.A. National Wildlife Research Center; Natural Resources Conservation Service; Nez Perce Tribe;
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla; University of Calgary; Oregon State University; Washington State University;
University of Washington; University of Montana; Central Michigan University; Animal Welfare Institute; Wolf Recovery
Foundation; United Kingdom Wolf Conservation Trust; National Wolfwatchers Coalition; Toyota TogetherGreen; Idaho
Golden Eagle Audubon; U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and Yellowstone National Park.
© 2016 Second Edition
Defenders of Wildlife
1130 17th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-4604
202.682.9400
www.defenders.org
Cover photos: range rider © Louise Johns; sheep and fladry © Brad DeVries/Defenders of Wildlife;
black angus cattle © Terrance Emerson/Adobe; wolf © Sandy Sisti
Printed on 100% recycled paper, 60% post-consumer waste, processed chlorine-free.
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................2
1. Assessing Your Needs.......................................................................................................... 3
2. Reducing Attractants.......................................................................................................... 5
3. Working with Livestock Guardian Dogs.............................................................................6
4. Erecting Barriers: Fencing, Fladry and Penning..................................................................9
5. Increasing Human Presence: Range Riders and Herders.....................................................11
6. Using Scare Tools and Tactics: Alarms, Lights and Nonlethal Ammunition.......................13
7. Switching Grazing Sites.................................................................................................... 16
8. Other Methods Worth Considering.................................................................................. 17
Resource Directory....................................................................................................... 19
© SUZANNE ASHA STONE/DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Bibliography............................................................................................................... 22
Payette National Forest, Idaho
defenders.org
1
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
Introduction
A
solutions devised by livestock producers, agency managers and
researchers working together.
Chapter 1 describes key factors to consider when evaluating your
own livestock operation. Chapters 2 through 8 provide examples
of the different approaches and their benefits and limitations.
Please note that this guide provides a basic overview, but it is not
intended as a substitute for personal expert advice. You may still
need the help of wolf-management professionals to evaluate and
tailor nonlethal control measures to your situation. You can find
these experts in the state-by-state Resource Directory at the end
of the guide. For even more information, check the references and
additional readings in the bibliography.
We hope you find this guide helpful and welcome your feedback
on it. Please contact any of the Defenders field offices (listed
by state in the Resource Directory) to share your thoughts and
experiences. Your feedback is valuable and may be helpful to other
livestock producers or resource managers.
© BRAD DEVRIES/DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
s a livestock producer operating in areas where wolves live,
you have likely wondered how you can keep your animals safe
in an economically viable way. You may have raised livestock for
decades before wolves returned to your region and may be unsure
of what to do to prevent livestock losses should wolves show up
near your operations. In some areas, wolves are protected under
federal, state or provincial law, so you need to know what conflictprevention strategies you can legally use. Most important, you need
to know what will work best in your particular situation.
Sometimes wolves are killed to prevent additional livestock
losses. Lethal control may relieve conflicts temporarily, but new
wolves usually move into the vacated territory, and, unless the root
cause is addressed, the cycle of loss may continue. The purpose
of this guide is to help you consider how to best address the root
cause of wolf depredation in economical ways that protect both
livestock and wildlife. It covers nonlethal tools, methods and
strategies that work and offers real-life examples of successful
HOW THIS GUIDE EVOLVED
In 2006, Defenders brought together
wildlife conservationists, biologists,
academic researchers, agency specialists
in wolf-livestock conflicts and livestock
producers operating in wolf range for
a workshop. Together we evaluated
proactive livestock protection tools and
2
nonlethal methods and strategies that
help reduce livestock losses to wolves.
In 2008, Defenders published a
manual incorporating the experiences,
insights and recommendations of the
workshop participants and information
from ongoing discussions and interactions
with livestock producers and wildlife
and agricultural researchers.
This second edition of the manual
includes updates that reflect the best
protocols after a decade of testing and
applying these methods and strategies
in a wide range of situations.
Defenders of Wildlife
1. Assessing Your Needs
eciding which tools, methods and strategies are suitable for
protecting your livestock depends on many different factors.
Start by contacting local wildlife managers to help you evaluate
your situation and identify what will work best for your operation.
What type of livestock you need to protect and what predators
are present are important considerations. Research suggests that
when wolves attack livestock, they focus on the animals that are easiest to kill. For instance, wolves rarely attack adult cattle and horses.
They tend to prey more on sheep, calves, goats and yearling cattle.
Other key considerations are where, when and how your
livestock are grazing. Livestock dispersed on large grazing allotments—publicly owned lands where grazing is allowed by permits
issued by the federal government—can be one of the most difficult
wolf-livestock conflict situations to resolve. Many of these allotments are in remote and rugged terrain with very dense trees and
brush and are often scattered, making it harder for sheepherders,
range riders or wranglers and livestock managers to spot a potential conflict.
Overall, the important factors to consider include:
• Number, age, health and type of livestock
• Whether livestock are scattered or grouped
•Season
• Location and accessibility of site
• Size of grazing area
• How often people directly supervise the livestock
Thinking like a wolf
When developing a strategy for reducing risk to your livestock, it
helps to understand things from a wolf’s perspective.
Wolves are natural hunters, but they are also opportunistic
scavengers, and the scent of a rotting carcass will attract them. In
northeastern Oregon, biologists discovered livestock carcass pits
using only satellite data from radio-collared wolves that showed
frequent visits to the sites of the pits. Once producers removed
the pits, the wolves lost interest and eventually stopped visiting
these sites.
Naturally adept at detecting injured or diseased animals, wolves
often focus on the weakest animals in a herd or band. A wolf can
usually tell if a healthy adult animal it normally would not attack
has somehow become disadvantaged—hindered from escape by
deep snow, for example.
In addition, wolves learn quickly and can overcome their fear of
certain scare devices such as sounds or lights if repeatedly exposed
to them. Depending on your situation, changing devices and
methods frequently will help keep wolves from getting habituated
to them and losing their natural wariness.
Increasing the wolf’s perception of risk can help reduce the
chances of livestock losses, but working proactively to prevent
wolves and other predators from being attracted to your livestock
operation in the first place (see Chapter 2) is often the best strategy.
A range rider surveys a livestock watering hole on a Wyoming grazing allotment.
© DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
D
defenders.org
3
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
Livestock stress and permit considerations
When practical, building small night corrals to protect livestock
within a small pasture is often effective and economical, compared
to installing predator-deterring fencing around large multi-acre
pastures, which can be costly. Some livestock producers are successfully using electric night pens on private pastures where livestock
can more easily adapt to these enclosures or to temporary, easily
moveable pens like those constructed from fladry.
One band of sheep in Montana was so well-adapted to its night
pen that, like chickens returning to their coop, the sheep entered
the pen on their own at the end of the day. In New Mexico, a
rancher using a two-strand electric fence system to create small,
easy-to-monitor pastures reports that his cattle are so accustomed
to their routine that he can move his entire herd in less than half an
hour using only a whistle, two dogs and a load of fresh feed.
Penning livestock every night can present challenges, too.
Penning can stress animals not accustomed to it, and increased
stress may affect their condition. Moreover, grazing permits on
national forest land may not allow it in areas where overgrazing or
trampling of vegetation can harm native plants.
Chapter 4 provides more information on fencing.
Seasonal and location-based considerations
Some grazing sites require different strategies depending on the
season or location. For example, if you decide to use livestock
guardian dogs (LGD) to protect your animals, you should avoid
using them near wolf den sites in spring when wolves will instinctively defend their young from other canines (dogs, coyotes or
other wolves that are not members of their pack). Using LGDs in
these areas during the springtime actually increases the likelihood
of conflicts with wolves. However, using LGDs at other times of
the year with sheepherders or range riders present to assist the dogs
helps reduce livestock losses to wolves. Chapter 3 addresses these
issues and more on LGDs.
The importance of record-keeping
Good record-keeping is a valuable tool in resolving wolf-livestock
conflicts. Records of interactions and related observations are useful
in identifying trends, problem areas and vulnerable times of year,
which can help improve the effectiveness of targeted, preventative
measures. Good records provide reliable information to inform
decisions on the type of devices or activities most appropriate
for a particular situation and guide their use. This can reduce the
need for experimentation and improve the likelihood of success.
For example, records can show where repeated predator problems
occur and when. Based on that information, you can simply change
grazing schedules to use problem pastures at other times or for less
vulnerable livestock.
4
In addition to keeping good records of wolf-livestock interactions and other observations, it is important to count your livestock
regularly when possible—especially in large pastures, allotments
or areas with dense vegetation and/or rugged terrain where dead
livestock can go undetected for weeks or months. Producers who
do not regularly monitor their animals can suffer substantial losses
before they even know their livestock are missing. This makes it
more difficult to identify and implement timely and appropriate
techniques that could reduce livestock casualties and the need for
wolf control. It can also complicate the cause-of-death determinations typically required where compensation payments are available.
Communication, agreement and evaluation
Working with agency staff, other livestock producers and local
conservationists consolidates resources, reduces costs and increases
the chances for success. It can also help resolve conflicts between
agricultural and environmental advocates. As one rancher puts it,
coming together is “a great place to start,” because “the collaborative process works and can help those with divergent opinions
resolve misunderstandings without damaging the value of one
another as human beings.” A written agreement that clearly defines
expected roles and responsibilities and fosters good communication
is essential to setting the foundation for a productive collaborative
process. A system for evaluating the project should also be included
as each project, whether successful or not, provides valuable information about the effectiveness of methods in varying situations. n
KEY POINTS: Assessing Your Needs
µContact state and federal wildlife managers to help
evaluate your situation and identify appropriate
techniques for your operation.
µConsider the number, age and type of livestock;
the season; the size of the grazing area and
how often people check on the livestock.
µBe proactive by taking actions to reduce or eliminate
predator attractants on your livestock operation.
µEvaluate your livestock protection strategies often to
ensure that you are using different strategies and not
habituating wolves to a deterrent with repeated use.
µWhen working with a team from different
agencies or organizations, develop a written
agreement describing duties and roles.
µKeep records of what you are doing so you can
evaluate, compare and modify as needed.
Defenders of Wildlife
2. Reducing Attractants
L
© SUZANNE ASHA STONE/DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
ike other canines, wolves have a very good sense of smell and
can detect prey from miles away. The scent of a decomposing
carcass or sick animal is enough to attract a hungry wolf. Any dead,
diseased or dying animal left unguarded is an attractant for scavengers and easily identified as vulnerable prey by predators. Once
animals that are both scavengers and hunters—such as wolves,
bears and eagles—are drawn to an area, the likelihood increases
that they will go from feeding on a carcass to hunting and killing
live cattle or sheep nearby. The afterbirth from calving can also be a
powerful attractant for wolves, a fact to consider when planning the
timing and location of calving activities (see Chapter 8).
Hauling away, burying or burning livestock carcasses rather than
leaving them in the field to decay reduces the chances of attracting
scavengers. It also limits the food supply in the area, which can
reduce the number of scavengers in general. Once a wolf becomes
used to a food source, such as dead livestock, it is more difficult to
stop it from returning to look for an easy meal. Other attractants
include sick or dying livestock, birthing areas and, oddly enough,
domestic adult ram sheep. Wolves often target domestic rams over
ewes and lambs. Wolf managers don’t know yet why this occurs,
but it happens frequently enough to warrant consideration.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Fencing around a deep carcass pit is an added barrier to wolves and other scavenging
predators drawn to the area.
Regularly burning or burying carcasses in the pit helps keep
wolves away from your area. Surrounding the pit with predatorresistant electric fencing provides an additional barrier, which is
particularly important if bears are present. Using either a rendering
facility, a managed carcass-composting site or a commercial landfill
is the best way to dispose of carcasses, but if those alternatives are
not available, constructing a carcass pit or burying carcasses may be
the next best option. n
KEY POINTS: Reducing Attractants
µRemove diseased or dying livestock from areas
where they can attract wolves and other animals.
A trail camera captured these wolves attracted by the carcass of a sheep. Scavengers as well
as predators, wolves are drawn to dead animals.
Constructing a carcass pit
When carcass removal isn’t possible, some livestock producers use
pits to dispose of dead livestock. While carcass pits—especially
poorly constructed or maintained ones—will still attract scavengers, reducing access to them helps discourage return visits. To limit
access, a carcass pit should be located away from homes and areas
used by healthy livestock—especially calving pastures and water
sources—and should be properly constructed and maintained.
Adding lime below and above the carcasses accelerates decomposition. When the pit is full, it should be buried under several feet of
dirt to discourage scavengers. This will not deter bears however, so
please consult bear experts if you are also protecting livestock from
bear depredation.
µIncrease livestock protection efforts for rams when
present in wolf range. Wolves have demonstrated
an aggressive propensity to domestic rams and
may target them over ewes and lambs.
µHaul away carcasses or dispose of them in properly
constructed and maintained pits whenever possible.
µMake your carcass pit as deep as possible
(6 to 8 feet) and cover it to discourage
most scavengers from digging it up.
µRoutinely burn carcasses in the pit or bury
a full pit under several feet of dirt.
µInstall electric fencing around your carcass
pit to further reduce the chances of wildlife
using it to feed on carcasses.
defenders.org
5
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
L
ivestock producers around the globe have long relied on dogs
to protect livestock from predators such as wolves, bears and
lions. In some instances, the mere presence of dogs helps keep
wolves away from livestock. In other cases, dogs play a more active
role by alerting herders to wolves and other predators in the area.
The ability of a livestock guardian dog (LGD) to protect livestock is partly a result of genetics and careful breeding and partly
a result of socialization and proper training. Over the centuries,
people have selected the best working dogs for breeding purposes to
pass along valuable traits to future generations. Dogs that harassed
or harmed livestock were typically relieved of duty and not permitted to breed, thereby removing undesirable traits from the gene
pool. Socializing and bonding pups with livestock is a crucial part
of their training (see page 7). The climate and landscape in which
the dogs live, the distances they travel, the diseases they are exposed
to and their food supply also influence their behavior.
In North America, the use of LGDs, mainly to protect sheep
and goats from coyotes and domestic dogs, has been growing since
the mid-1970s. Great Pyrenees, Anatolian shepherds, Akbash and
other breeds that have been used for centuries in Europe, Asia and
Africa are now used to protect livestock throughout the United
States and Canada.
Breeds that make good LGDs are not the same breeds that make
good livestock herders. The two functions, guarding and herding,
are quite different, and the dogs that do best at each task have been
bred for their specific tasks. In other words, border collies are bred
to herd; Great Pyrenees are bred to guard.
How effective are LGDs? Researchers at Hampshire College
in Amherst, Massachusetts, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
National Wildlife Research Center in Colorado and the U.S. Sheep
Experiment Station in Idaho addressed this question by placing
LGDs on farms and ranches throughout the United States. Almost
immediately, they received reports of fewer livestock losses from
predators. Most of the cases studied focused on coyote attacks on
sheep and goats, although other predators such as domestic dogs,
mountain lions and wolves were included.
Tests of the ability of LGDs to protect cows from wolves
in northern Minnesota and Michigan demonstrated that with
proper management dogs can be effective. Interviews with cattle
ranchers in Kenya, Turkey and Italy also suggest that properly
managed LGDs can play a valuable role in protecting against a
wide variety of predators. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) National Wildlife Research Center is currently conducting field studies of LGDs and results from this study should be
available in 2016.
6
© HENRY AND HOLLY BALLESTER, ANATOLIAN SHEPHERD DOG INTERNATIONAL, INC.
3. Working with Livestock Guardian Dogs
The Anatolian shepherd is one of several breeds developed to guard livestock.
Choosing and using livestock guardian dogs
To determine if LGDs are suitable for your operation, consider
your primary needs and how such a dog could fit into your current
management program. Professionals at the USDA, local agriculture
extension agents, other livestock producers experienced with LGDs,
breeders and breed clubs can help you evaluate your situation and
provide advice on dog selection and use.
Regardless of breed, selecting your pups from good working
stock and similar livestock operations is important. Pups learn from
their mothers, so make sure she has the characteristics of a good
LGD. Base your selection on a dog’s working potential, rather than
breed registration and physical standards. Pups can learn behavior,
but not all registered LGD breeds are born with the instincts
necessary to do well. The right LGD is the one that demonstrates
the traits necessary for your particular situation. Desirable LGDs
reliably stay with their livestock and successfully defend them by
alerting people to the presence of threatening predators.
Open-range operations with large flocks or herds of livestock
usually require more dogs than a small operation. LGDs should
stay with livestock rather than chase or fight with wolves (or other
predators). An LGD permitted to give chase will end up far away
from the herder and in an unnecessarily risky position that can
result in the injury or death of the dog.
When wolf packs have new pups, generally from April through
June, keep LGDs and other dogs away from known wolf den sites
and use other means (such as fladry, grazing location alternatives
or devices that scare wolves away) to avoid conflicts with wolves.
While denning, wolves appear to perceive dogs as a threat to their
pups, much as they would perceive unfamiliar wolves, and may
defend their young by seeking out and killing the dogs.
During other parts of the year, livestock owners who are
working three or more LGDs together to defend large sheep bands
regularly report a decrease in predator attacks. Wolves, particularly
lone wolves, tend to avoid encounters with other packs of wolves
and appear to perceive multiple dogs as another pack.
Although the use of multiple dogs is recommended for large
operations, there is also a limit to the number of LGDs that can
be adequately cared for and managed effectively. Some producers
report that when five or more LGDs are used per flock of sheep,
the dogs become more interested in socializing with each other
rather than in guarding livestock. As a rule, more dogs are more
effective in larger livestock operations, but the characteristics of the
individual dogs play a critical role in their ability to work together
as a team.
© BRAD DEVRIES/DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Defenders of Wildlife
A Great Pyrenees stands guard on an Idaho sheep ranch.
RAISING AND TRAINING LIVESTOCK GUARDIAN DOGS
Provide the pups with nutritious dog
food, and do not keep them in dugouts
or doghouses except in extreme and
threatening weather conditions. Instead,
encourage pups to dig their own dirt beds
and sleep among the livestock. This will help
bond the pups and livestock.
When the pups are old enough, have
them accompany livestock to the rangeland.
Discourage unacceptable behavior such as
biting or chasing livestock and pulling wool.
Immediately remove any dogs that persist in
chasing, biting, injuring or killing livestock.
Follow these training guidelines and your
dogs will learn important lessons during the
development period when they are most
responsive to people and to livestock.
© BRAD DEVRIES/DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
If you decide to raise your own LGDs from
pups, it is crucial that they are well socialized
with the type of livestock they will protect. It
is especially helpful if they can learn from an
experienced LGD.
Experts recommend raising guardian
pups in the corrals with livestock, starting
when they are four to five weeks old.
Discourage pups from straying from the
corrals and return them to the livestock if
they stray.
Minimize the handling and stroking of
pups. Do not treat them like pets. A good
LGD will come when it is called and allow
the owner to handle it (for vaccinations and
other health-related needs), but should not
seek attention from people.
Guarding dogs raised with livestock bond with their charges.
defenders.org
7
© ANNA CELLAR
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
Great Pyrenees pups are ready for transport to farms in the Great Lakes region where researchers will monitor their effectiveness at protecting livestock from predators.
Some LGD breeds are more aggressive than others toward
people. This may be an important consideration if you ranch in a
populated area versus an isolated one. For example, if you intend to
use LGDs in or adjacent to federal lands, such as a national forest
or recreation area, there may be safety issues to consider concerning
hikers, cyclists, horseback riders and their pets. LGDs that are
too aggressive may pose a risk to the public and pet dogs. Some
producers post signs to alert the public that LGDs are in use in the
area as a nonlethal method to reduce conflicts with native predators
and may bark aggressively if livestock are approached too closely.
If you are going to use LGDs in a fenced or pasture operation
(as is usually the case in the midwestern and eastern United States),
introduce and restrict them to the location where they will be
working at an early age to discourage roaming outside pastures.
If you are using LGDs and not getting good results, you may
need to re-examine the number of dogs you are using per flock/herd
or setting. Also review how to choose and raise pups—especially
during the critical development period between two and 12 weeks of
age—and, in general, what best matches your needs in a LGD.
For livestock guardian dogs to work successfully, a thorough
understanding of LGD training and management and how this
proactive approach applies to your operation is vital. n
8
KEY POINTS: Livestock Guardian Dogs
µTo determine if LGDs are an appropriate choice to
help protect your livestock from conflicts with wolves,
carefully evaluate your particular operation with the help
of professionals experienced with the use of these dogs.
µConsider breed types that best suit your livestock
operation and its proximity to the public. Select
pups from working stock that demonstrate effective
protectiveness on operations similar to your own.
µLGDs defend livestock from wolves by alerting
people to the presence of wolves, not by fighting
off the wolves. Once they sound a warning alert,
LGDs need human support, such as a herder, to
use other methods to scare predators away.
µFrom April through June, keep LGDs away
from active wolf den sites to avoid attacks
from wolves defending their young.
µIf you are already using LGDs but not seeing
results, contact a wolf-management specialist
in your state to help you re-evaluate.
Defenders of Wildlife
4. Erecting Barriers: Fencing, Fladry and Penning
B
arriers are used effectively to deter predators such as wolves and
bears throughout North America, Europe and Asia. Electric
fences or combinations of wire mesh and electric fencing have been
particularly successful, especially when used for protection at night
when wolves are more likely to prey on livestock. Some types of
fencing are portable and can be used with good results even in openrange situations. There are also ways to increase the effectiveness of
fencing with the addition of fladry, a barrier consisting of a series
of red or orange flags hung at regular intervals along a thin rope.
Fladry can be used alone or strung along an existing fence line.
Fladry was first developed and used by hunters in Eastern
Europe to funnel wolves into an area. Once caught in the fladry
trap, wolves were reluctant to cross the barrier and were shot as they
tried to escape through the narrow end of the funnel. In Canada
and the United States, researchers adapted the fladry technique as
a nonlethal method for keeping wolves out of livestock enclosures.
There is also an electrified version of fladry called “turbofladry,”
which is fladry hung on an electrified line, which can be powered
by solar-charged batteries. Wolves that attempt to cross the
turbofladry or try to bite or touch the barrier—as wolves often
do—experience a harmless but mildly painful electric shock similar
to that of a dog shock collar. Turbofladry or electric wire mesh
fencing may also be considered an aversive conditioning tool since
the wolf has a negative experience—shock upon contact—which
can potentially extend the length of time these barriers are effective.
Choosing and using barriers
Permanent fencing
Permanent fencing has proved to be a very effective deterrent
in certain conditions. It tends to be more suitable for smaller
operations where livestock use night corrals or small pastures. The
fence must be sturdy, tall enough so predators cannot climb or
jump it, and free of any gaps where a predator could slip through.
Since the height needed depends on the fencing material (woven
versus electric, for example) and the type of livestock, seeking the
guidance of biologists or wolf managers is highly recommended.
These experts can help you assess your situation and design an
effective permanent structure.
For livestock kept in large enclosures or on open range,
permanent fences are typically too costly to build and maintain.
In addition, permanent fences are not portable and of little use
with freely roaming livestock. For example, using predator deterrent fencing such as electric woven wire, multistrand, high railing,
or similar obstructions on open-range grazing allotments is usually
not allowed on public lands, is very expensive and can injure deer
and other wildlife. Some of these allotments are on national forests
in the northern Rockies—also prime wolf and bear territory—and
have some of the highest livestock losses to predators. Livestock
in this area are often moved on a seasonal basis or grazed on open
ranges during the spring, summer and fall.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Turbofladry, fladry hung along electrified fencing, adds the element of shock, boosting the effectiveness of the fladry barrier.
defenders.org
9
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
Portable fencing
Portable fencing or pens can be a very effective alternative when
permanent fencing is not a good option. Portable fences can be
made from several different types of materials including multiple
electric fencing strands, wire netting or mesh, and portable
panels. The cost, utility and effectiveness vary based on the type
and number of livestock and the terrain. To help reduce livestock
stress, get your animals accustomed to the portable pens by using
them during feeding times, etc. If you have a grazing allotment,
make sure your grazing permit allows the use of portable fencing.
You should also regularly move the fencing to keep native plants
from being trampled or overgrazed.
KEY POINTS: Barriers
Fladry and turbofladry
Fladry fences are much less expensive to produce and install than
wire or permanent fencing. Fladry is also easily moved and can be
quickly installed over large areas by one person. To be effective,
it is important to install the fladry properly. Researchers used red
or orange reinforced plastic flags measuring 50.8 centimeters by
10 centimeters (approximately 20 inches by four inches) sewn at
50.8-centimeter (20-inch) intervals on a 0.2-centimeter (0.8 inch)
diameter nylon rope suspended so that flags hang 50.8 centimeters
(20 inches) above the ground on secure posts spaced roughly 30
meters (98 feet) apart. Depending on the type of materials used,
fladry may require regular maintenance to keep it from coiling
around itself or the rope, dropping too low or hanging too high.
Cattle are also known to chew and pull on fladry. A broken,
frayed, tangled, pinned down or otherwise compromised fladry
will not deter predators and must be replaced. Properly designed
fladry and turbofladry can be difficult to find commercially.
Contact your local wildlife or agriculture agency.
Fladry alone is most effective as a short-term (30- to 45-day)
µFladry can be used alone or as an addition to permanent
or portable fencing. It is relatively inexpensive, but must
be preordered, properly installed at the right height, and
regularly maintained.
µThe type of predators and livestock present and the
grazing conditions are important factors in considering
what type of barrier to use.
µPermanent fencing can be a good option for smaller
operations where night corrals or small pastures can be
fenced affordably.
µUnder open-range conditions, portable fencing and pens
are easier to install and more affordable, but stress to
livestock and native plants as well as grazing permit
restrictions should be considered.
µTurbofladry is effective three or more times longer than
regular fladry but requires electricity to charge. Supplies
of both types are limited in the United States, so fladry
orders may take considerable time to process.
µConsult a wolf manager experienced with the different
types of barriers to help determine which one is best for
your operation.
deterrent. As with all proactive methods, wolves may stop responding after repeated exposure, rendering the method ineffective for
preventing losses. Studies have shown that the added “bite” of
turbofladry—fladry on top of electrified line—although more
expensive, can remain effective three or more times longer than
regular fladry. n
FLADRY SAVES THE NIGHT
After repeated wolf attacks claimed
dozens of sheep and led to expensive
government lethal control of two wolf
packs, one sheep producer was ready
to try something new. With the help of
agency experts, he installed a portable
electric night pen on his operation near
Red Lodge, Montana. As a second line of
defense in case the solar battery failed,
he added a strand of fladry to the outside
perimeter of the pen. The sheep soon
became so accustomed to the pen, they
entered it on their own at day’s end.
© BRAD DEVRIES/DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
10
In the three years after installing
the night pen, the producer reported
losing only one animal to wolves—a ewe
accidentally left outside the pen.
One spring night the power source for
the pen’s electric fencing failed. The next
day, sheep managers found a set of wolf
tracks in the snow. The tracks led up to the
pen, turned away and reapproached it from
another side before turning away again and
wandering off. The fladry barrier effectively
deterred the wolves from killing sheep
while the electric fencing was not working.
Defenders of Wildlife
5. Increasing Human Presence:
Range Riders and Herders
L
ivestock losses from wolves often occur when the producer is
unaware of wolves in the area. Being aware of wolf activity
helps producers and wildlife managers develop strategies for best
protecting livestock. Increasing human presence on the range with
riders for cattle operations and more herders for sheep allows you
to monitor your livestock and wolf activity and may be one of the
best ways to deter wolves.
A range rider, for example, can patrol your ranch or allotment
at dawn and dusk when wolves are most active. The rider checks
for signs of unusual agitation in the cattle, behavior that can
indicate wolves or other predators are in the area. The rider also
listens for howling and looks for other signs that wolves are present
such as tracks, scat and hair snagged in fences.
Rider protocols vary from place to place, but the underlying
concept is similar: Regular or frequent human presence can
minimize livestock loss to wolves that avoid contact with humans
or by intervening when wolves attempt to prey on livestock. In the
best scenarios, riders who are able to respond quickly to wolves
approaching or chasing livestock can prevent losses from occurring
simply by their presence.
Range rider and herder basics
Cattle on public grazing allotments—and in some circumstances
on private lands—are often spread across a wide area, which
may include open prairie, rugged terrain and partially or heavily
forested land. Cattle may be gathered or scattered depending
on the operation. As such, range riders may have to cover as
much ground as possible while checking on livestock and
may not be in exactly the right location at exactly the right
time to respond to wolves. Even so, the chances of preventing
a loss are still better than in places where human presence is
less frequent. Those chances can be improved if cattle are in
a managed herd rather than scattered across the landscape.
From 2005 to 2015, range-rider projects sponsored by
Defenders and others reported low-to-zero losses in comparison
to the higher losses recorded before the riders were deployed.
With so many variables from place to place, there is no
absolute proof that range riders actually prevented livestock
losses, but when surveyed, most participating producers
said they credited the range-rider program with preventing
losses and were interested in continuing the practice.
© KATJA TORNEMAN
Range riders increase the human presence on grazing lands, and the more people on the range, the less likely wolves are to come around.
defenders.org
11
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
Like cattle operations, sheep operations can benefit from
adding more herders to increase protection for their animals. This
is especially true at night when the sheep are on bedding grounds
and most vulnerable to predators. The additional herder can
cover the night shift and focus on preventing losses to predators. Herders can also boost their effectiveness by working with
livestock guardian dogs that can alert them to the presence of
wolves and other predators.
Riders and herders can monitor livestock closely, providing
other advantages such as finding dead livestock and identifying
cause of death and providing early detection of injury, illness or
stress in the herd. Riders can also assist with preventing livestock
from overgrazing sensitive meadows and streambeds, reducing the
chances of livestock theft and detecting the presence of plants toxic
to livestock. Adding this kind of personnel increases production
costs for the livestock operation but may be worth the cost if losses
to predators and other threats are minimized. Finding experienced
riders and herders can be difficult because wages are often low and
the work is hard, especially when it involves nighttime surveillance
and camping with livestock. Agencies, conservation groups and
other ranchers may be able to help by pooling resources for range
riders, adding herders and providing other preventative measures. n
KEY FACTORS:
Increasing Human Presence on the Range
µUsing range riders for cattle operations and more herders
for sheep operations provides important protection
against predators.
µRange riders can monitor livestock while looking for
signs of wolves and other predators and scaring away
any that approach livestock operations. Check with
local authorities about hazing and aversive conditioning
techniques that may be applicable to your area. Rules
vary by state and species.
µIdeally, sheep herders can work in shifts allowing the
herder on night duty to deter predators while sheep are
on bedding grounds.
µIncreased human presence has other benefits. For
example range riders can quickly find diseased, injured or
dead livestock and treat or determine the cause of death;
remove carcasses that attract predators; protect sensitive
grazing areas; prevent livestock theft; and provide early
detection of diseases and of plants toxic to livestock.
µAgencies, conservation organizations and other ranchers
can work together to pool resources to establish rangerider or herder programs.
Some range riders use stockmanship,
the skillful handling of livestock in the
“low-stress manner” pioneered and
taught by renowned stockman Bud
Williams. Low-stress livestock handling
relies on pressure and release rather
than force or fear and is fundamentally
different from conventional handling.
Practitioners use the low-stress approach
to move, herd and even place cattle,
often at higher stocking densities.
This type of management allows
cattle to feel more comfortable staying
in closer groups, which mimic natural
herds, and may promote defensive
behavior in cattle such as standing
their ground against predators and
defending their calves when threatened.
Livestock are most vulnerable to
predation when scattered over large
areas. The behavior encouraged by the
12
low-stress methods of the Bud Williams
Stockmanship School, the Savory Institute
and other programs could make cattle less
vulnerable to wolves by encouraging them
to act as a herd. The approach is based on
the strategy observed in bison of forming
large herds and standing their ground to
reduce the risk of predation by wolves.
Researchers are now investigating
the use of low-stress livestock handling
as a tool for reducing livestock-predator
conflict. In recent experiments, cattle
managed with the low-stress approach
displayed a rekindled herd instinct, stayed
together and suffered no depredation in an
area known to be inhabited by predators.
Low-stress livestock handling
is proving to be a viable option for
improving rangeland health and grazing
management and potentially reducing
livestock losses to predators.
© RONAN DONOVAN
REKINDLING HERD INSTINCTS: STOCKMANSHIP
A range rider monitors a herd in Montana.
Defenders of Wildlife
R
esearchers are constantly developing and testing tools and
methods for keeping wolves away from livestock.
A wide range of devices can be used to protect livestock against
wolf depredation. Some are highly technical, others have been
around for centuries and can be surprisingly simple. Banging
a wooden spoon on a metal pot, for example, has successfully
frightened wolves away from a sheep band bedded down at night
in a mountain meadow. Multiple devices and methods may also be
required. Herders in the central Idaho’s Wood River Wolf Project
report that a combination of dogs, spotlights and human presence
is the best strategy for protecting sheep in wolf country.
Scare devices
Field technicians and herders in the Wood River Wolf Project have
been successfully deterring wolves with air horns, starter pistols
and high beam flashlights when they encounter them near sheep at
night. These inexpensive ($10 to $50) devices alert wolves at greater
distances to the presence of humans and are used when wolves and
other predators are detected near livestock.
Radio-activated alarms
In the early 1990s, a Montana rancher had an idea for an alarm
system triggered by the radio collars that biologists use to track
and monitor wolves. Based on this idea, researchers from U.S.
Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services developed what is now
known as a radio-activated guard system—“RAG box” for short.
RAG boxes consist of a receiver, a bright strobe light, two
loudspeakers and an internal computer that collects and stores
information received from transmitters on wolves’ radio collars.
To keep wolves from getting used to any one sound, RAG
boxes produce a variety of alternating sounds, which can range
from sirens to gunshots to beating helicopter blades to cowboys
yelling on horseback. The RAG box can be attached to a fence
line or placed nearby and set to go off whenever it picks up a
preprogrammed radio-collar signal (it only works on radio-collared
animals). Power is supplied to the RAG box either through a 12-volt
car battery, which needs to be charged every couple of weeks, or
through a solar panel that recharges itself. Studies by Wildlife
Services and the University of Nebraska found that RAG boxes are
most effective for small pastures (60 acres or less), especially when
lambing or calving is taking place in smaller enclosures. Training
is necessary to learn how to operate the receiver, and the RAG box
system is also initially expensive due to the cost of assembly.
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
6.Using Scare Tools and Tactics: Alarms,
Lighting and Nonlethal Ammunition
Ian Whalan, the Australian sheep and cattle farmer who invented Foxlights in 2008 to address
his country’s serious problem of fox predation on newborn lambs, shows off his brainchild. In
2013, Defenders’ nonlethal wolf control expert visited an Australian project that was using the
lights to deter dingoes and brought a shipment of the devices back to the United States. Since
then, Foxlights have been successfully used to keep wolves away from livestock in Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming.
Automated light devices
The variety of automated lighting devices aimed at guarding against
predators ranges from motion-sensitive lights to infrared light
emitters. As with any device or method, exposing predators to
lighting devices too frequently can cause habituation and diminish
or eliminate the desired response.
A new device called the “Foxlight” avoids easily detectable
patterns so that night predators do not quickly become accustomed
to it. The Foxlight uses an intermittent series of lights in varying,
random flash patterns to simulate human activity, such as someone
moving a torch around, which stops human-wary predators from
approaching.
Foxlights are still being tested in the field, but their effectiveness
for reducing livestock losses appears to be short-term (30 days or
less). Like other deterrents, Foxlights and similar devices may work
best as a temporary deterrent or in tandem with other deterrents.
Evidence also suggests that they may be more effectively used
proactively to prevent predation rather than reactively to deter an
ongoing problem.
Nonlethal ammunition
Certain types of ammunition that make a loud sound when fired or
that can hit an animal without injuring it can be used to scare away
wolves. These alternatives to conventional ammunition include
beanbag shells, paintballs and rubber bullets.
defenders.org
13
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
Beanbag shells are square bags filled with beans and rolled up.
Paintballs are gelatin capsules filed with nontoxic, water-soluble dye
and shot from a special compressed-gas-powered marker or gun.
At normal velocities (up to 300 feet per second), paintballs break
on impact. They can strike a wolf with enough force to frighten it
and possibly bruise it. Rubber bullets are bullets made of, or coated
with, rubber. Fired at short range, rubber bullets can be lethal and
are often heavy enough to pierce skin even at proper ranges.
Because nonlethal ammunition can inflict serious injuries if used
improperly, it is important to learn how to use it and to understand
the specific conditions under which the various types can be safely
and legally used. In some areas these tools are prohibited or require
a permit. See the Resource Directory to find an agency expert in
your state for more information, training and permits. n
WOOD RIVER WOLF PROJECT
µAlarm systems and nonlethal ammunition can be effective
tools for scaring wolves away from livestock and alerting
livestock managers to the presence of wolves.
µFoxlights are among the new predator-deterrent
light devices now on the market. These deterrents
turn on at dusk and emit lights until dawn.
Foxlights also have a strobe type of lighting that
looks like a flashlight moving in the dark.
µNonlethal ammunition either makes an explosive
sound to scare wolves away (such as an air horn) or
strikes the animal with just enough force to frighten
it (beanbag shells, rubber bullets and paintballs).
µThe use of alarm systems or nonlethal ammunition may
require training and a permit. Nonlethal ammunition can
inflict serious injuries or death if it is used improperly.
The project is a
comprehensive effort
to use alternative
nonlethal livestock-protection methods
rather than lethal control. The methods
used include increased human supervision
near livestock, nighttime sheep band and
wolf monitoring, hazing of wolves that
linger near livestock, removing attractants
such as carcasses, and avoiding grazing
areas near den and pup rendezvous sites.
In the first seven years of the project,
wolves killed fewer than five sheep per
year out of the 10,000 to 22,000 grazing in
the project area—the lowest loss anywhere
in Idaho’s wolf and sheep-grazing range.
The Wood River Wolf Project
continues to work with local stakeholders,
using a community model to address
conflicts with nonlethal, adaptive
strategies and to implement solutions
collaboratively. To learn more about the
project, contact the Lava Lake Institute
for Science and Conservation (see
“Tools and Strategies,” page 21).
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
In 2007, a wolf pack killed sheep and
livestock guardian dogs on national forest
land in the Sawtooth National Recreation
Area in Blaine County, Idaho, near the
historic Sawtooth Sheep Driveway, a
“super-highway” for moving thousands
of grazing sheep along the Big Wood
River. But instead of the usual response
of calling in government wildlife control
agents to kill the wolf pack, which had
gained popularity among wildlife watchers
in the area, county residents and officials
decided to try another approach. Thus the
Wood River Valley Wolf Project was born.
KEY POINTS: Scare Tools and Tactics
14
Defenders of Wildlife
7. Switching Grazing Strategies
roactive measures cannot always be implemented quickly or
effectively enough to prevent livestock losses. In such cases
moving livestock to an alternate grazing site can be a viable solution
for livestock owners and wildlife managers alike.
These relocations can be temporary (especially on private
land) or—if the grazing permittee is willing—involve permanent
exchange of grazing allotments. Some wildlife conservation groups
or land trusts have purchased grazing permits from livestock owners
on a voluntary basis to end chronic conflict and lethal wolf and
grizzly control. This approach has enabled ranchers to continue
raising livestock in areas with less conflict potential.
Important factors to consider
Cooperative agreements to temporarily switch or permanently retire
grazing allotments can help reduce livestock-predator conflicts and
provide benefits to other wildlife species such as elk and deer. There
are many examples of ranchers, conservationists and agency officials
successfully working together to adjust the timing and location of
allotments to minimize conflicts with wildlife and allow livestock
grazing activities to continue. In some cases of permanent grazing
allotment retirement, willing ranchers have received payment for
the value of their public grazing permits in high-conflict areas and
then used the funds to lease or purchase new pastures in other areas
where losses from predators were less likely.
Livestock relocations may not have to be permanent. Predatorcaused livestock losses most often occur when livestock are most
vulnerable—during calving or lambing, for example, during the
spring when grazing near a wolf den site with pups that need to be
fed. In such instances, a temporary move such as shifting calving
and lambing activities closer to the barnyard to allow for additional
monitoring may be an alternative. Wolf-livestock experts in your
region (see Resource Directory) can assist with evaluating your
specific situation and work with you to come up with the most
appropriate conflict mitigation technique for your operation. n
KEY POINTS: Switching Grazing Strategies
µMoving livestock, even temporarily, to an
alternative grazing location to avoid conflicts
with wolves can be a win-win solution.
µSwitching to alternative grazing sites can be
challenging because of the logistics of the move,
the expense and the viewpoints of all involved.
However, it can also be an opportunity to bring
people together to jointly find a solution that helps
the producer, the livestock and the wolves.
Sheep move through
a grazing allotment in
Idaho’s Sawtooth
National Forest.
© SUZANNE ASHA STONE/DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
P
defenders.org
15
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
8. Other Methods Worth Considering
Y
ou may have heard of other methods used by operators to
prevent wolf-livestock conflicts. Most accounts of these efforts
are anecdotal and involve approaches not yet scientifically analyzed
or compared. Conditions vary for each operation, which can impact
the effectiveness of these approaches. Other methods may come to
light as operators, government agencies and others work to reduce
conflicts between livestock and predators. Defenders of Wildlife
is collecting data on these methods and helping to evaluate them
as they are developed in the field. A few examples of promising
approaches used by some livestock operations are highlighted below.
“Mountain-savvy” versus “naïve” cows
One livestock producer in northeastern Oregon reports
that placing bells on all his cattle has helped reduce losses
to wolves in very remote and rugged terrain. Belling cattle
is an old tradition but may become more popular if this
strategy does reduce losses to predators. The bell produces
a loud racket if the cow wearing it starts to run. This may
help counter the predator’s instinct to give chase.
KEY POINTS: Other Methods Worth Considering
µ Cattle experienced in defending their calves from wolves
lose fewer calves than naïve cattle that don’t defend their
young from depredation.
µ Herding and stewardship methods that cause cattle to
herd up may make them less vulnerable to wolf attacks.
See the Resources Directory for contact information
for stewardship and herding advocacy organizations.
µ Planning and managing calving for condensed
seasons, sharing labor and resources with neighbors
or scheduling calving for a time when wolf pups
have other young wild prey are some strategies
that may help reduce predator conflicts.
© RONAN DONOVAN
Ranch managers in southwestern Alberta have noticed that cows
familiar with wolves are less vulnerable to depredations than cows
outside of wolf territories. Similarly, ranchers who regularly transported naïve, pregnant cows from prairie pastures to the rugged
mountains of Gila National Forest in New Mexico reported high
rates of livestock losses.
In these instances, the cow’s unfamiliarity with wolves or the
new landscape and lack of maternal experience likely contributed
to high calf mortality as opportunistic wolves moved in quickly
to take advantage of the situation. More and more, ranchers in
the western United States are reporting witnessing mother cattle
successfully defending their calves from wolves.
Bells on cattle
16
Defenders of Wildlife
Calving strategies
© LNZPHOTOGRAPHY/ADOBE
In areas where year-round livestock grazing is possible, calving can
occur throughout the year, often in locations that are difficult to
monitor. In predator-occupied areas it may be helpful to schedule
and manage for a condensed calving season to better monitor
calving activities. Not only can this reduce predator conflicts when
livestock are most vulnerable, but, according to some ranchers, can
also help address other problems such as calving complications and
accounting of herd numbers. In addition, predator-resistant electric
fencing or barrier fencing of calving pastures can help deter a wide
array of predator species.
In other regions of the world, ranching neighbors often plan
and set up “calving camps” to help one another by sharing labor
and resources during this critical time. In addition to deterring
predator losses, calving camps can help 1) increase calf delivery
success by assisting cows and heifers having problems; 2) detect and
treat sickness; 3) oversee 36-hour weaning period for rebreeding of
females; 4) supplement the feeding of calves during drought; and
5) help tame calves. Another benefit of planned calving is that it
allows ranchers to conduct calving activities in easily monitored
locations and during the daylight with minimal predator conflicts.
Some ranchers report increasing their success during calving season
by keeping bulls as part of the calving herd and allowing other
aggressive animals, such as donkeys, to mingle with the herd. n
Ranchers in the United States and Canada
have noted differences in the relative
vulnerability of yearlings and cow-calf pairs
to wolf attacks. Based on the livestock
compensation data collected over the last
25 years in the northern U.S. Rockies,
for example, wolves have killed calves far
more frequently than any other age group
of cattle. In Canada, however, yearlings
appear to be more prone to wolf attacks
than calves raised with mother cattle.
Many ranchers graze yearlings because
these younger animals will actively seek
grass in less accessible portions of the
range. As they range more widely across
pastures, yearlings become vulnerable to
wolves. They also tend to investigate novel
sights and sounds, even to their own peril.
In Alberta, cow-calf pairs tend to bunch
up in response to an approaching predator,
and mother cows have been known to
stand and protect their calves. In the
northern U.S. Rockies, however, converting
from yearlings to cow-calf pairs has
resulted in increased losses. Some of the
ranchers who converted experienced wolf
attacks on their livestock for the first time.
More monitoring and research are
needed to better understand the reasons
for these regional differences. Factors
such as the type of landscape, size
of allotment pasture, breed, maternal
instinct and experience with predators
may all play a role in determining whether
yearlings or cow-calf pairs fare better
against wolves in any given situation.
© STEVE OEHLENSCHLAGER/ADOBE
COW-CALF PAIRS VS. YEARLINGS
Cow-calf pairs may fare better against predators in some
regions. In others, grazing yearlings keeps losses down.
defenders.org
17
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
Resource Directory
State, tribal and federal agencies and other
sources of information and assistance
in the United States and Mexico
To report a dead wolf or possible illegal activities involving wolves:
Idaho Tip line, Idaho Fish and Game Law Enforcement:
800.632.5999
NOTE: Financial assistance for the use of nonlethal tools is
sometimes available through state and federal programs. The
availability of funds can change from year to year and state to
state. Check with your state agriculture and wildlife agencies to
learn more. Compensation for livestock lost to certain predators
may be available through the U.S.D.A. Farm Service Agency’s
Livestock Indemnity Program. See your local Farm Services
Agency for more information.
To report livestock depredations or for assistance with proactive
tools: U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services: 208.378.5077 or 208.373.1630
ARIZONA
Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team: 928.339.4329
To report a dead wolf or possible illegal activities involving wolves:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement,
Southwest Region: 505.248.7889
For information about financial assistance and proactive tools:
Mexican Wolf/Livestock Coexistence Council: 505.761.4748
Farm Service Agency/Arizona State Office: 602.285.6300
Defenders of Wildlife (Tucson office): 520.623.9653
COLORADO
Colorado Division of Wildlife: 303.297.1192
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 303.236.7905
To report a dead wolf or possible illegal activities involving wolves:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement:
720.981.2777
Colorado Parks and Wildlife: 877.265.6648
For information about proactive tools:
Defenders of Wildlife (Denver office): 303.925.0918 ext. 450
IDAHO
Idaho Fish and Game (Ask for the wolf management specialist)
Boise: 208.334.2920
Salmon: 208.756.2271
Nampa: 208.465.8465
Nez Perce Tribal Wolf Program: 208.634.1061
18
To file for livestock compensation from the state:
Idaho Supplemental Wolf Compensation Program: 208.334.2189
or email Jon.beals@osc.idaho.gov
For information about financial assistance with proactive tools:
Office of Species Conservation: 208.334.2189
For information about proactive tools:
Defenders of Wildlife (Boise office): 208.424.9385
MICHIGAN
For information on reducing predator-livestock conflicts, the state
wolf compensation program and wolf management in general:
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wolf Coordinator:
906.228.6561
To report livestock losses, a dead wolf on your property or possible
illegal activities involving wolves:
Michigan Department of Natural Resources: 800.292.7800
For information about financial assistance for proactive tools and
depredation compensation:
Michigan Department of Agriculture: 888.684.1158 (Escanaba);
800.292.3939 (Lansing)
For information about proactive tools:
Defenders of Wildlife (national office): 202.682.9400
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wolf Coordinator:
906.228.6561
For information about husbandry practices to prevent conflicts:
Michigan State University Extension: 906.228.4830 (regional
office); 906.439.5880 (Upper Peninsula office)
Michigan Department of Agriculture: 888.684.1158 (Escanaba);
800.292.3939 (Lansing)
Defenders of Wildlife
MINNESOTA
NEW MEXICO
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: 651.295.5175
Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team: 928.339.4329
To report suspected livestock depredation, a dead wolf on your
property or possible illegal activities involving wolves:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Information
Center (Find Local Conservation Officer): 651.296.6157 (instate); 888.646.6367 (out of state), your county sheriff’s office or
U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services: 218.327.3350
To report a dead wolf or possible illegal activities involving
wolves:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement,
Southwest Region: 505.248.7889
For information on state compensation for verified livestock
depredation: Minnesota Department of Agriculture: 651.201.6578
For information about proactive tools:
Defenders of Wildlife (national office): 202.682.9400
Minnesota Department of Agriculture: 651.201.6578
MONTANA
For information about financial assistance for proactive tools and
depredation compensation:
Mexican Wolf/Livestock Coexistence Council: 505.761.4748
Farm Service Agency, New Mexico State Office: 505.761.4900
Defenders of Wildlife (Tucson office): 520.623.9653
OREGON
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: 503.947.6000 or
800.720.6339
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (Ask for the wolf management
specialist)
Helena: Headquarters, 406.994.4042 or
Helena Area Resource Office, 406.495.3260
Billings: 406.247.2940
Bozeman: 406.994.6371
Butte: 406.494.1953
Great Falls: 406.454.5840
Kalispell: 406.752.5501
Missoula: 406.542.5500
To report a dead wolf or possible illegal activities involving
wolves:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: 503.947.6000 or
800.720.6339
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement:
503.682.6131
To report a dead wolf or possible illegal activities involving wolves:
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks: Tip-Mont is a toll-free hotline to
report poaching and other crimes. It stands for “Turn in Poachers
Montana.” Call 800.847.6668 (800 TIP MONT). Callers can
remain anonymous and may be eligible for cash rewards.
For information about financial assistance for proactive tools and
depredation compensation:
Oregon Department of Agriculture: 503.986.4767
To report livestock depredations:
U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services: 406.657.6464
For information about financial assistance for livestock loss
prevention and depredation compensation:
Montana Livestock Loss Board: 406.444.5609
For information about proactive tools:
Defenders of Wildlife (Missoula office): 406.728.8800
To report wolf sightings or wolf sign:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: 541.963.2138
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 541.786.3282 or 888.584.9038
For information about proactive tools:
Defenders of Wildlife (Boise office): 208.424.9385
UTAH
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources: 801.538.4700
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 801.975.3330
To report a dead wolf or possible illegal activities involving
wolves:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement:
720.981.2777
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources: 801.538.4700
For information about proactive tools:
Defenders of Wildlife (Boise office): 208.424.9385
defenders.org
19
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
WASHINGTON
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: 360.902.2200
To report a dead wolf or possible illegal activities involving
wolves:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement:
425.883.8122
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: 877.933.9847
To report livestock depredation:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: 877.933.9847
For information about financial assistance for proactive tools and
depredation compensation:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Compensation):
360.902.2490
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Prevention):
360.902.2476
To report wolf sightings or wolf sign:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Eastern Washington: 509.891.6839
Western Washington: 360.753.9440
Wolf Reporting Hotline: 888.584.9038
For information about proactive tools:
Defenders of Wildlife, Boise Office: 208.861.4655
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: 715.762.1363
To report a dead wolf that appears to have been killed illegally or
to have died from an unknown cause:
Wisconsin conservation warden, local sheriff or Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources tip line: 800.847.9367
If no illegal activity appears to be involved, contact a Department
of Natural Resources biologist.
To report livestock depredations or for assistance with proactive
tools:
U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services:
Northern Wisconsin: 800.228.1368 (715.369.5221 out of state)
Southern and Central Wisconsin:
800.433.0663 (920.324.4514 out of state)
20
For information about financial assistance for proactive tools and
depredation compensation:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Wildlife
Management: 715.356.5211, ext. 234
For information about proactive tools:
Defenders of Wildlife (national office): 202.682.9400
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: 715.365.8917
WYOMING
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 307.330.5631
Wyoming Game and Fish: 307.777.4600
To report a dead wolf or possible illegal activities involving
wolves:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement:
307.261.6365
To report livestock depredations or for assistance with proactive
tools:
U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services: 307.261.5336 or 866.487.3297
For information about financial assistance for proactive tools and
depredation compensation:
Wyoming Game and Fish: 307.777.4600
Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board: 307.777.6781
For information about proactive tools:
Defenders of Wildlife (Boise office): 208.424.9385
MEXICO
Mexican Wolf/Livestock Coexistence Council 505.761.4748
Defenders of Wildlife
Tucson office: 520.623.9653
Mexico office: 52.55.55.96.21.08
To report a dead wolf or possible illegal activities involving
wolves:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement
(New Mexico): 505.346.7828
Defenders of Wildlife: 520.623.9653
Defenders of Wildlife
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
GENERAL INFORMATION
Tools and techniques
Defenders of Wildlife:
www.coexistingwithcarnivores.org
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Program: endangered.fws.gov
Wolf Recovery Program: westerngraywolf.fws.gov
Western Great Lakes Wolf Recovery Program:
www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf
Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program:
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf
Management strategies
Bud Williams Schools, Springfield, Missouri
The schools are no longer offered, but DVDs on
stockmanship and marketing are available.
www.stockmanship.com
U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services: www.aphis.usda.gov/ws
Hand ’n Hand Livestock Solutions, Bolivar, Missouri
www.handnhandlivestocksolutions.com
The stockmanship and marketing schools
pioneered by the late Bud Williams are now being
taught by his daughter and son-in-law.
National Wildlife Research Center:
www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc
Lava Lake Institute for Science and Conservation, Hailey, Idaho
www.lavalakeinstitute.org
P.O. Box 2249
Hailey, ID 83333
208.788.1710
State wildlife agencies: www.fws.gov/offices/statelinks.html
Nez Perce Tribe Wildlife Program:
www.nezperce.org/Programs/wildlife_program.htm
Yellowstone National Park wolf restoration and pack data:
www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolves.htm
Savory Institute, Boulder, Colorado
savory.global/institute
Foxlights
Foxlights International Propriety Limited
www.foxlights.com
7/22-24 Sarsfield Circuit
Bexley North, NSW 2207
02.9150.9509
ian@foxlights.com
defenders.org
21
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
Bibliography
Barnes, Matt. 2015. Livestock Management for Coexistence with
Large Carnivores, Healthy Land and Productive Ranches. Keystone
Conservation. Bozeman Montana.
Chavez, A. and E. Giese. 2006. Landscape use and movements
of wolves in relation to livestock in a wildland-agriculture matrix.
Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1079-1086.
Bangs, E.E., J.A. Fontaine, M.D. Jimenez, T.J. Meier, E.H.
Bradley, C.C. Niemeyer, D.W. Smith, C.M. Mack, V. Asher, J.K.
Oakleaf. 2005. Managing wolf/human conflict in the northwestern
United States. In People and Wildlife: coexistence or conflict? eds. R.
Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, 340-356. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Coppinger, R. 2006. Using livestock guarding dogs as protection
against wolf predation. In Proceedings of the 2006 North American
Wolf Conference Northern Rockies Nonlethal Wolf Management
Workshop. Chico Hot Springs, Montana.
Bangs, E., M. Jimenez, C. Niemeyer, T. Meier, V. Asher, J.
Fontaine, M. Collinge, L. Handegard, R. Krischke, D. Smith,
and C. Mack. 2005. Livestock guarding dogs and wolves in the
northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. Carnivore Damage
Prevention News 8: 32-39.
Beyer, D., T. Hogrefe, R. B. Peyton, P. Bull, J. P. Burroughs, and
P. Lederle (editors). 2006. Review of social and biological science
relevant to wolf management in Michigan. Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan, USA. http://www.
michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Wolf_White_Paper_178870_7.
pdf Accessed 10/2/2015 (This paper includes information about
nonlethal options to help minimize livestock losses to wolves.)
Bradley, E. H., and D. H. Pletscher. 2005. Assessing factors related
to wolf depredation of cattle fenced pastures in Montana and
Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:1256–1265.
Breck, S.W. and T. Meier. 2004. Managing wolf depredation in
United States: past, present and future. Sheep and Goat Research
Journal 9:41–46.
Breck, S.W., R. Williamson, C. Niemeyer, and J.A. Shivik. 2002.
Non-lethal radio activated guard for deterring wolf depredation
in Idaho: summary and call for research. In Proceedings of the
Vertebrate Pest Conference, 20: 223–226.
Bussard, J. 2015. In Control of the Cows. Working Ranch
Magazine. Abundant Life Media. Newport Beach. CA.
22
Defenders of Wildlife. 2015. Living (and Making a Living)
Alongside Wolves. Defenders Blog. http://www.defendersblog.
org/2015/04/living-and-making-a-living-alongside-wolves/
Accessed 10/2/2015
Gehring, T. M., J. E. Hawley, S. J. Davidson, S. T. Rossler, A. C.
Cellar, R. N. Schultz, A. P. Wydeven, and K. C. VerCauteren.
2006. Are viable non-lethal management tools available for
reducing wolf-human conflict?: preliminary results from field
experiments. In Proceedings of the 22nd Vertebrate Pest Conference,
R.M. Timm and J.M. O’Brien, eds, 2-6. University of California,
Davis, California. (This study evaluates the effectiveness of shock
collars, livestock guarding dogs and fladry in reducing wolf use in
areas of Wisconsin and Michigan.)
Gese, E. M., S.P. Keenan, and A.M. Kitchen. 2004. Lines of
defense: coping with predators in the Rocky Mountain Region.
Utah Agricultural Experiment Station. Utah State University.
Logan, Utah. (The booklet examines the methods used by livestock
owners and wildlife managers to identify and reduce losses to native
predators including animal husbandry practices, guard animals,
fencing and barriers and other devices.)
Holder, J. and W. Holder. Predator Avoidance Techniques;
Herding, Power in Numbers. A Field Guide to Low Stress Herding.
Marker, L., D. Kraus, D. Barnett, and S. Hurlbut. 1991
Management Practices to Reduce Predator Conflict. In Cheetah
Survival on Namibian Farmlands, 25–39. Solitaire Press.
Windhoek, Namibia. Original publication sponsored by USAIDfunded Environmental Education Project. http://cheetah.org/
site/wp-content/uploads/2003/01/survivalbook.pdf Accessed
10/2/2015
Defenders of Wildlife
Michigan Farm Bureau, Michigan Department of Agriculture,
Michigan Cattleman’s Association, Michigan State University
Extension, Michigan State University Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S.D.A.
Wildlife Services. 2006. How to Minimize Livestock Losses to
Predators: A Guide for Livestock Producers. Michigan Department
of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan. http://cdm16110.
contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p9006coll4/id/37817
Accessed 10/2/2015
Minnesota Department of Agriculture. A Guide for Minnesota
Farmers and Ranchers Living in Wolf Territory. Minnesota
Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minnesota. http://www.mda.
state.mn.us/grants/disaster/wolf.aspx Accessed 10/2/2015
Musiani, M. and P. Paquet. 2004. The practices of wolf
persecution, protection, and restoration in Canada and the United
States. BioScience 54: 50–60.
Smith, D.W., D. Mech, M. Meagher, W.E. Clark, R. Jaffe, M.K.
Phillips, and J.A. Mack. 2000. Wolf—Bison Interactions in
Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Mammalogy. 81:1128–1135.
Stone, S. A. 2009. Compensation and non-lethal deterrent
programs: building tolerance for wolf restoration in the Rockies. Pp
141–158 in A new era for wolves and people: wolf recovery, human
attitudes, and policy (M. Musiani, L. Boitani, P.C. Paquet eds.).
University of Calgary Press. Calgary, Alberta.
Stone, S.A., S. Breck, J. Timberlake, P. Haswell, F. Najera, L.
Schoen, B. Bean, C. Niemeyer, C. Weaver, and D. Thornhill. In
Press. Adaptive use of nonlethal strategies for reducing wolf-sheep
conflict in Idaho. Pending Publication. Journal of Mammalogy.
defenders.org
23
Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts
NOTES
24
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
1130 17th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-4604
202.682.9400
www.defenders.org